Six years on, and still fighting Lapindo

They Fight for the Forest

The Iban Dayaks from Semunying had always lived simply alongside their natural environment. Then in 2005 an oil palm plantation company appeared, wanting to take over the ancestral forest that had been the backbone of people’s livelihoods for generations.

One year previously the company had obtained permission from the regency government for a 20,000 hectare plantation in Jagoi Babang district. Included in the permit area were 1,420 hectares of land for which the Iban Dayaks were the customary landowners. At first, PT Ledo Lestari, a subsidiary company of Duta Palma Nusantara Group, only built a road which passed close to the ancestral forest. But as time passed, they continued to take more of the land, taking space from the people without permission and eventually clearing their ancestral forest.
While this was going on, the people were fighting for their rights to the forest by conveying their grievances to the local, provincial and national governments. Through their testimony and complaints they even tried to raise the issue at an international level.

On the 15th December 2009 the Bengkayang regency leader designated the 1420 hectares as the ancestral land of Semunying Jaya village, later reinforcing this designation with an official decision (SK 30A/2010). However, it is in the nature of all governments to support the rich and business interests, and so the people’s cries were not listened to and Ledo Lestari was free to fell the forest and replace it with oil palm.

Now aware that the corrupt government, side-by-side with the greedy company, was not going to release their land, on the 7th April 2012 the people of Semunying commenced a week-long occupation where they sealed off the company’s office, seized various items of heavy machinery and operational vehicles, closed the nursery for young trees, and put a stop to the ongoing logging work. “On Monday morning we stopped their ongoing attempts to fell our ancestral forest. Since that Monday, we have continued step-by-step, eventually taking over three excavators, three trucks, three motorbikes, two chainsaws, one bulldozer, as well as closing down PT Ledo Lestari’s offices and tree nurseries. We are demanding our rights back!”, said Abupilah, the Semunying Jaya village secretary.

The people explained that the reason for their resistance was that they knew that as new oil palm plantations were created, they would lose their forests, their land, their forest gardens, their hunting grounds,space to clear for fields and building materials for their houses. Local customs and culture would also be extinguished. Aside from this, the company had closed off the stream which was the source of clean water for the village, making it difficult to obtain clean water.

The company was still determined to keep operating, giving the reason that it had obtained permission from the government. The company also argued that since the forest had only been declared as protected ancestral land five years after they started production, they could not just stop work on the plantation. In the end PT Ledo Lestari kept working because the office and vehicles which the people had seized were only a small part of the company’s equipment and supporting facilities.

Anti-Mine Awareness in East Nusa Tenggara

In the last five years the East Nusa Tenggara Provincial Government has taken a very accomodating attitude to mining development. Many mining permissions have been issued by the provincial and regency governments, for minerals such as iron sand, gold, iron ore, uranium, copper etc. Since entering the era of regional autonomy, NTT is increasingly tormented by the mining industry.

The development of the mining industry in East Nusa Tenggara is indeed astonishing. Since 2007, extractive industries have commenced activities in all parts of the island chain. The number of mining claims submitted to Kupang Regency alone stretches to 80 companies, most of which are already operational. In South Central Timor Regency 176 claims have been submitted, in North Central Timor 139 and in Belu Regency, 89 mining companies are operational. Meanwhile there are also the mines which have already been open for a long time, such as the gold mines in East Sumba, Central Sumba, Lembata, Manggarai Barat, Alor and East Flores, or the iron sand mining in East Manggarai, Sikka and Lembata. Several of these mines are even located in conservation forest.

However this development is being accompanied by widespread resistance. Open protests have occurred from the far east of Lembata to the far west of Flores in West Manggarai. The anti-mining movement has also spread to Sumba, Timor and Alor.

The anger of the movement resisting mining in East Nusa Tenggara has resulted in a heightened consciousness amongst local people about conditions in the mining areas and what is going on there. Wherever it takes place, mining only causes the loss of living space, of work, deteriorating health, loss of a healthy and functional environment, loss of educational opportunities, the destruction of natural resources for future generations and the loss of customary lands.

An awareness is growing amongst the people that the mining industry is a key strategy to kick people off their land and strip them of everything until all they have left is their physical strength as they are forced to work in industry. This view is growing amongst intellectuals and church leaders. “Mining never brings the people any benefits. The people should reject mining, and what’s important is that people should know that mining is a destructive evil, especially for communities near to the mine”, Father Simon, a churchman from Ende, has explained.

Meanwhile environmental activists have been developing criticisms of the supposed benefits of mining and the myths that surround it. The first myth is that mining is a capital-intensive industry without high risks, whereas the facts show that many mountains have been dismantled, many areas of land have been turned into holes, leaving environmental damage in its wake. The second myth is that mining brings prosperity to an area, whereas in fact Freeport in Papua has left the local indigenous people languishing in poverty, while trillions of Rupiah are stolen from their lands and taken away by the company. Similarly in Aceh Utara and Lhoukseumawe, where the centre of poverty is located right at the point where seven strategic industries operate, or in Kutai Kartanegara, where 700 mining permits have been issued and the focus of poverty is in and around the mining area.

The third myth is that mining makes an important contribution to the states foreign exchange earnings, whereas in fact the share coming from mining is only 1-3%. Fourthly, mining is supposed to provide jobs, but in fact people from local villages can at best only find work sewing sacks and suchlike.

They say that mining brings security to the people. But what people? Under the production sharing system 4% goes to the national government, 1.5% to the provincial government, 2.5% to the local government where the production took place and 2% for nearby local governments. The remaining 90% is taken away by the investor”, said Markus Tulu, an activist. Meanwhile for the general society which still hold on to their traditions and customary viewpoints, the main reason for their opposition to mining is that for the indigenous people of East Nusa Tenggara, land is their mother – the source of all aspects of their livelihood.

As Eman Ubuq, from Lembata island and the co-ordinator of the Lembata United People’s front has said.“For the people of Lembata, land is our mother that brings us life. We would prefer to die than to let our mother be raped by investors”.

How a New Law on Social Conflict Supports State Repression

On 11 April 2012 the Indonesian parliament ratified a law on managing social conflict (Penanganan Konflik Sosial – PKS) in order to address Indonesia’s experience of dealing with social conflicts, which has often been considered less than perfect. The government had previously used a range of different existing regulations as its reference when dealing with conflicts. However they felt that this produced difficulties for subduing conflicts that spring up among the population. The government also felt the need for a single legal reference point to handle such cases. When dense conflicts with ethnic, religious, racial or intergroup aspects occur, such as happened in Poso (Central Sulawesi) or Ambon, the state’s response is perceived as slow and less-than-optimal because the government finds it difficult to formulate the appropriate steps to take, as the procedures for dealing with social conflicts are unclear.

But is the main reason for this new law really just to bring about peace and restrain conflict? Or were there other more fundamental and strategic objectives that needed addressing – ones that would serve to benefit certain other interested parties?

Agrarian Conflict in the PKS law.

The first clause of the PKS law defines social conflict as “clashes involving physical violence between two or more groups or factions that results in dispute and/or fatalities, loss of property, has a widespread impact, and occurs within a specific time-frame whereby instability and social disintegration emerge, potentially hampering national development in the sense of achieving security for society”. This definition is clearly extremely broad and could be interpreted in many different ways depending on how the conflict is viewed. This therefore gives a grand scope to the government to act against all forms of “social disorder” including agrarian conflicts which make up the greatest number of horizontal conflicts occurring in Indonesia. The Consortium for Agrarian Reform ( Konsorsium Pembaruan Agraria) has noted that in 2011 there were 163 agrarian conflicts, 22 farmers or others were killed and more than 120 people were injured by gunshots. 69,975 families were affected by these conflicts, with the total land area under contention stretching to 472,048.44 hectares.

According to the letter of the law, it exists for conflict deterrence, management and recovery within the conflict area, with the local (provincial or regency/city) government authorised to mobilise the armed forces. A connection can be drawn here with the handling of agrarian conflicts in which local people (farmers or fisherfolk) are often involved in a dispute with companies or corporations. In such conflicts the corporations always want to resolve their problems in the easiest and cheapest way to make sure they don’t lose out. That is why companies often follow the same pattern in dealing with land disputes. They incite horizontal conflicts that pit one group of people against another so that the company can easily take control of the land.

This model works by bribing the elite or local leaders, only offering some of the people compensation for their land or employing some local people who can be easily enticed by high wages and then end up siding with the company. In some situations, physical fights between the people cannot be avoided and property or lives are lost, eventually clearing a way for the company to establish control over the land. Under such conditions agrarian conflicts change into conflicts between the people and that can become a strong reason for the government to intervene to put an end to the conflict, resulting in the company’s victory in the land dispute.

Repression of Social Struggles

The PKS law makes clear that the government can at its discretion deploy national troops with battle capabilities that exceed those of the police. This law opens a wide space for heavy militaristic repression just like often happened during the 32 years Suharto was in power. It is also easy for the state to stigmatise social struggles in which people are demanding their rights, or indeed desiring a more complete social transformation, as a social conflict that must be restrained and extinguished. Just as the state keeps coming out with the same tired old values of stability, calm and order, this law claims that it can bring about such things by pushing for development and economic growth to increase security amongst the people. However, such clichéd phrases are used to obscure the true condition of society, where expropriation, exploitation and insults dominate Indonesian people’s daily lives. When the government speaks of creating calm conditions, what it really means is a situation that is conducive for big companies to seize people’s land and destroy people’s economic autonomy, forcing them into waged labour.

To smooth the way for companies to multiply their profits, it is vital they find the right way to prevent resistance from emerging and spreading. If the government’s attempts at persuasion, often involving NGOs as agents of social moderation, should fail, mobilising the forces of the military becomes the next choice to repress the people, under the pretext of securing and stabilising the situation. This becomes easier to do under the new law with the decentralisation of the power to establish an area as one of “social conflict”. In fact, with the practice of regional autonomy local governments often become loyal guards of companies’ interests. The cases of Morowali, Bima, Mesuji, Takalar and Semunying are proof that government is an important player in ensuring a smooth way forward for mining and plantation companies’ operations, ensuring permissions are swiftly given without the need to let local people know, and even taking the lead in preventing the people from doing anything about it. We can conclude from this that this new law will tend to reinforce the power of local governments, which have always taken it upon themselves to weaken each individual within their territories, spreading ignorance and using the law and forces of order to repress people, in order to be able to control them more easily and so continue doing exactly what they want.

In the case of social conflicts which at least on the surface are reported as being related to ethnicity, religion, race or intergroup factors, we can learn from the history of human civilization where a way can always be found to resolve such conflicts that fits with the local culture. Societies that have not experienced a formal system of government can always find some balance within their surroundings, even though war is often not avoided. Connected with this, the new law also assigns customary law (adat) bodies and the Conflict Resolution Commission (KPKS) as the institutions which should set in motion peace and reconciliation processes between conflicting parties.

Attempts to react to conflict clearly require substantial amounts of money, especially if the conflict should escalate. As a solution to the state’s incapacity to resolve conflict, it uses this law to empower local agents to achieve a resolution. Forums such as the musyawarah mechanism that have their roots in local cultures are appropriated and institutionalised in the interests of stability. But when the state takes over the people’s forums like this, anger can easily spread. In both the organisations relating to adat and the KPKS, state elements are very dominant, so the dialogue process will tend to avoid resolving the root causes of the problem and push the people to continue to obey the regulations as enacted by the government. In certain circumstances this is a cheap and easy way to dampen the fire.

Remembering that all laws and regulations are made by a handful of people in privileged positions with their own interests over our lives, we should always be cautious. The domination of a few over the lives of the rest must be stopped. Don’t wait around, get started now!

Call for Solidarity with the Malalayang Traditional Fisherfolk’s Struggle Against Coastal Reclamation in Manado

Coastal Reclamation, a megaproject that began in the early 1990s, continues along the length of Manado Bay. New land is being created in the sea to host big business, such as the establishment of new shopping palaces, the mushrooming of the banking industry, and assorted entertainment spots for the weary workers. The area of new land created in the reclamation zone stretches to thousands of hectares, spread over several major developments.

During the course of this development, there has been sporadic resistance from traditional fisherfolk along the Manado coast. Then in 2009, fisherfolk resisting in different parts of the bay began discussions to create a network of communication and started to show direct solidarity each time a group of fisherfolk was faced with conflict.

In Manado city, there are two hotspots which openly engage in occupations and sabotage as direct actions to stop building work along the coastline. The first are the traditional fisherfolk of Sario-Tumpaan. Their adversary is a businessman called Henky Wijaya, who uses a contractor company with the name of PT Kembang Utara. After seeing the legal battle end in deadlock, they became aware that it had been a futile effort, and started using different methods of direct action, which they had never tried before.

One of their tactics was to use blockades as a form of sabotage, and eventually occupied the space by opening the Daseng (a place where fisherfolk gather). The Daseng, originally only used as a garage by the shore to store fishing equipment and a place to relax after mooring their boats, was given a new purpose: permanent resistance. The daseng which the fisherfolk built in the middle of the reclamation land which is still in use until today. Most recently, angry fisherfolk blockaded the entrance for trucks carrying building material in order to stop the reclamation work.

The second resistance hotspot is along Malalayang II beach, where the fisherfolk continue to fight businessman Agus Abidin’s attempts at reclamation. Abidin also uses repressive methods, seeking interventions from the police and hired thugs. The Malalayang fisherfolk’s resistance has not been dampened by the developer’s wave of repression, and has for the moment successfully interrupted reclamation work.

Several anti-authoritarian activists joined in these acts of resistance as a form of direct, horizontal solidarity. Previously, a group of people using the label Anti-Authoritarian Fraction also had stood in solidarity with traditional fisherfolk occupying the reclamation site at Sario-Tumpaan beach in a spectacular celebration of Earth Day.

However, like a the waves that keep crashing onto the shore, the problems keep on coming. Malalayang II fisherfolk are now facing the same problem once again: land reclamation. But this time the opponent is a landowner called Dr. Awaludin, who is in possession of a piece of land along the shoreline. Although the fisherfolk had reminded him that the strengthening work that workers were currently carrying out on his land should not not turn into coastal reclamation, it was clear that was his intention. Awaludin had even hired thugs to protect his reclamation work. The police and government also clearly chose the developer’s side, accusing the people of disturbing the public order and looking for problems.

Terror has thus become their adversaries main weapon to strike back at the Malalayang fisherfolk’s persistant struggle to resolutely defend the sea and shore. Terror as police exposed their guns at the work site, or the abduction of two Malalayang fishermen accused of being “leaders and provocateurs” of the resistance action, or the use of hired thugs to protect reclamation work. In their anger, the fisherfolk eventually decided to take direct action, attacking the heavy machinery that is being used to dump material in the sea and blockading by occupying the trees along the shore that the developer wanted to cut down.

That latest tactic resulted in injury for the fisherfolk, as two women were struck by a falling tree as they persistantly refused to get out of the way, which would have meant stopping the blockade. L, one of the victims, is three months pregnant while the other, A, suffered serious concussion and had to be rushed to hospital for further treatment and examination. However it is well known how discriminative healthcare institutions are. Inadequate service and the lack of funds to pay for treatment meant she did not get the care she wanted.
We are asking individuals, collectives and affinity groups to help with the costs of caring for the two women injured during the resistance to coastal reclamation. Help can be sent to:

Bank Nasional Indonesia
account number: 012 99 48 212
Themmy Aditya

We, the people who disseminate this appeal, believe that whoever confronts the state and capital must also engage in mutual and horizontal solidarity with all people who are also fighting and making attempts to disrupt capital’s expansion and negate state power, however small they may be. Respect for all enemies of the state and capital is the reason why we call for and extend direct solidarity to all who wish to reach out for it. But at the same time, we don’t want to place limits on the forms of solidarity that might emerge with the traditional fisherfolk of Manado’s struggle.

Long live autonomous and decentralised resistance!
Long live sporadic direct action!

Anarchists and Traditional Fisherfolk Resist Land Reclamation: Two People Taken by Police.

[a note from NEGASI: Since 2009, the resistance to coastal reclaimation in Manado Bay has escalated. On the front line of these actions are the traditional fisherfolk from different communities along Manado Bay. After the actions of fisherfolk from Sario Tumpaan and people from Kalasey beach, now the fisherfolk of Malalayang II are also showing their resolve to resist.]

4 May 2012

At around 08.00 am, fisherfolk received news that mounds of earth on a piece of land owned by a doctor called Awalui were being moved towards the shoreline. Fisherfolk that gathered at the site realized that hired thugs and police from the Malalayang station had been stationed there to guard the work.

A call for solidarity went out to other friends involved in similar struggles at around 11 am. Several anarchists also got involved.

At the site, they saw that giant boulders had been placed right at the shoreline. The Malalayang fisherfolk, together with those who had come in solidarity, then went to stop the earth-moving work. Feeling outnumbered, the men hired by the owner chose to keep their distance from the fisherfolk and instead it was the police who confronted the masses. The police offered to negotiate, but this failed because the fisherfolk had one sole demand: that the work should stop.

At around 3pm the work finally stopped. Earth-moving machinery and trucks moved away from the site, but the fisherfolk continued to guard the coastline where work had taken place.

At 5pm, the fisherfolk dispersed, sure that the heavy machinery and trucks had really left the area. There was a tense atmosphere because of the possibility that the men hired by the landowner could still respond by attacking.

5 May 2012

At around 11am, fisherfolk out at sea saw that the trucks and heavy machinery had started work again. Other fisherfolk went to check but they did not try to stop work because the work was taken place on land owned by someone else. That work continued until the afternoon.

As night fell, the fisherfolk were relaxing together, and news came in that work on the site had started again. It seemed that the material which had been piled up earlier that day was actually being prepared for coastal reclamation work that night

At around 8pm, the fisherfolk gathered and moved towards the work site. Seeing that material was really being moved into the sea, they called for work to stop. Feeling that they were being ignored, as work continued regardless, the fisherfolk chose to attack, using rocks that were lying around the beach. Their target was the heavy machinery being used to carry out the work.
In response to the attack, the hired guards and cops responded with their own form of terror towards the fisherfolk. But as they were outnumbered, the police and hired thugs decided to retreat.

Work stopped at around 21.30 in the night, but fisherfolk were reluctant to move on from the area because they suspected work would start again if they did not keep watch.

At 23.30, a group of fully-armed police came and took away one fisherman who they accused of provoking and leading the previous attack. Responding to this sudden arrest, news was spread around calling for solidarity.

The Malalayang fisherfolk, with those who had come to show their solidarity, then converged on the Malalayang police station, where their friend was being held. It became clear that the arrest had been illegal and without the necessary official document. Another fisherman was also arrested during the action to surround the police station, accused of being a provocateur.

6 May 2012.

By 1am, numbers of people were increasing. Tension was also heightened because people could see that the group of hired thugs sat with the police were now drunk. Several angry fishermen demanded the immediate release of their two friends.

Things started heating up as some cops got involved in a verbal fight with the fisherfolk and the others. A cop threatened one participant with his weapon, before news that the two arrested people would soon be released made the situation calm down.

Those arrested were set free at around 3am after being put through a process of illegal interrogation by the police. The people outside finished their action and dispersed.

There was a co-ordinastion meeting at 9.30ma, between the Malalayang fisherfolk and other fishing groups to make plans, analyse the situation and consolidate wider solidarity in the case that the police or thugs should carry out any further aggressions.

Long live the struggle of traditional fisherfolk resisting coastal reclamation!!!
Long live direct action and horizontal solidarity !!!
source: Negasi

–extract from

http://hidupbiasa.blogspot.com/